"Some of you older programmers may have used jQuery." Oh dear, I'm getting old as the jQuery era was my prime of programming before other activities in life took over. Apparently, as someone in their early fourties I am now in the older category.

On topic: thanks for this great summary of the issue. I too miss the prime stackoverflow days. Although the availability of LLMs has allowed me to learn new things and generate some code again, the passion and love for programming that was on (the early) stackoverflow, I do miss. Also the times of just buying a book to learn about a new tool or language (jQuery in Action teached me a lot) feels different from just asking Claude Code to fix or explain something.

Same. For me it was basically that as a body of knowledge, it kind of stabilized. I didn't work in a rapidly developing field like the newest JS frameworks, so for what I knew, most stuff simply became answered.

Whenever I took the time to make a long answer on a question, I saw some mod close the question as a duplicate of an existing one - even though the question could have some minute detail that was different, or perhaps there was some recent change in the landscape that meant an answer in 2020 would be different from one in 2013. But no: aggressive marking as duplicate even though clearly as a _community_ it would be much better to have a more recent discussion, perhaps more alternative answers and just allowing the near-duplicates.

Very much agree.

The query in this thread further confirms it, by november 2022 (ChatGPT reveal), usage had already dropped to ~109120 questions/month as compared to peak usage in March 2014 at 207169 questions/month.

The trend continued since but their decline is surely not caused by LLM:s.

> Was it the culture, as others here pointed out? Or did I just get busy with other things?

Culture or no culture LLMs killed SO for good, there's simply no need for it anymore

I'm starting to feel old. I remember fondly using jQuery. Oh, and MoTools.

I've got a similar story and similar rep, although I only have about a dozen answers posted after 2021. I haven't ever told anyone how much I answered questions there, either. I wasn't there for the points, I was there for the puzzles. I think I've gotten like another 3k rep since I stopped going there. It looks like I finally lost my "Top 2%" status, or else they got rid of that for everyone.

For me, I think I left for a few reasons. All of them are some flavor of "the design is user-hostile".

The first reason is the "traps" they put in the moderation review queue process. These always felt like shit, even if you were right. And for some reason they frequently picked questions where you could reasonably pick multiple reasons to close a question... and they'd yell at you for getting it wrong! Really, this needlessly punitive experience is the heart of why SO was so awful, because everything is like that across the whole site. Some of the network sites aren't like that, but it's rare. And there were just so many Meta questions where the upvoted response was "this would be hard to do right, so instead we're going to do it the way we all know is wrong but it's easy."

The second reason is just how awful the onboarding is. The site constantly had problems with people either not posting code or posting screenshots of code. I don't know why they didn't make a beginner form, similar to what you often see on GitHub issue trackers for large projects (i.e., always include this, always include this, include this if it's relevant, etc. and it's in the textarea box when you start a question). Instead they assume that you know how to ask a question, give you a completely blank form, and then aggressively policy anything where you didn't do it right. I think the one thing to come out of that site is that people do not inherently know how to ask questions. [Which, if anybody has been responsible for responding to IT tickets, oh, boy, do they not know how to ask questions or report problems. "I'm getting errors running my report in the Finance application. I need this report soon! Help!" No mention of which report. No mention of what the report parameters were. No mention of which error message. They don't know what the error message means so, obviously, it must not be useful to anybody.]

The third reason is the site finger-pointing. "This doesn't belong here so I'm locking and closing your question," is possibly the most ridiculous thing ever. Why doesn't it move the question to the other site and then make a stub link? More awful, user-hostile experience.

But, I think the final nail in the coffin is just how aggressively awful rpg.stackexchange.com is, which seeks objective, hyperliteral answers to game questions that are, by design, subjective and intentionally meant to be played with interpretation and nuance. The result is a handful of highly active users will nit pick any answer or question they don't like. Really, I think it's the GameFAQs Forum clique problem, to a significant extent. Some people really have nothing better to do except quash the utility of a site they have a small amount of control over, and it largely ruins the whole experience for the majority of other people. And, unlike a subreddit, you can't just go make your own version on the same topic. It doesn't work like that.

Now your intelligence was shamelessly stolen and other people making billions of it.

I don't get why there is actual complaining about that outcome, because that seemed what the actual intention was. SO made it clear, that they do not want to be a Q&A forum, but a collection of novel and interesting questions. Naturally, a lot of newly asked question were already asked in a similar fashion, which for SO philosophy meant that they could be merged. In addition, they gradually increased the "quality" level new questions need to be have, to be kept.

The declining number of questions is hence not a side-effect or a mistake, but just means that they reach their end-goal. It's actual a measure of success. (Now you can disagree, whether that philosophy was reasonable or sustainable in the first place, but given there choice, this is the logical conclusion and end goal.)

SO was a governance disaster. It was the infighting it was the strike, it was bad auto moderation tools. And the Stack Exchange strike wasn't really about AI. AI was just the final trigger after years of management undermining the community that made the platform valuable.

Stack Exchange was built on an implicit social contract people contributed their expertise and thousands of hours of unpaid work because they believed they were building a collectively governed knowledge resource. The company owned the platform, but the community created its value.

After time, management became increasingly centralized and disconnected from contributors. Also the policing of questions based on geeky criteria and not what users wanted. The increasingly aggressive policing of questions, closing perfectly reasonable discussions, and incorrectly saying questions are duplicates made the platform unnecessarily hostile to everyone, qmd at least thats why i quit. Quality control gradually became useless gatekeeping.

So there were really more than one problems, corporate management treating contributors as free labor, and established contributors treating their moderation as authority over everyone else, there were bad tools closing questions. The platform had become extremely hard to use for posting questions, finding amswers, moderator work. For me it was useless. Incidentally the closing of “opinion” questions was the worst decision since it was the only thing that could make it distinct from AI produced answers.

For some of the events there is paper here with details https://arxiv.org/html/2512.08884v1

I had stopped going to it quite some time ago.

1. It was hard to ask any question. Sometimes it felt if a few characters match it will be closed off as dupe. Besides no thought was given to the fact that same question might change entirely from pov of the answers for a platform or SDK across, say, a decade (?).

2. I also realised reading the documentation (that is if available) and looking though github and people's blogs helped better.

3. But bigger takeway was that due to relative uselessnes (if not downright hostility) of SO I started just breaking down the problem and solving on my own, talk to colleagues, or look for solutions for broken down problems and then I think I used to come across SO in months and that too most of the time when a colleague will refer to something.

This was before LLMs or COVID.

> 1. SO question numbers dropped precipitously before AI came along.

This was single-handedly the work of arrogant self-righteous moderators who would close random useful questions as not useful just to prove they were doing something. A lot of us long timers got annoyed at selective enforcement of rules and never looked back. It's sad because it was actually a fun place to hangout. Too much moderation always kills the vibe.

I contend that shitty moderation was why it flatlined.

I enjoyed answering algorithm questions. Unfortunately, every so often, people who weren't into algorithms would show up. And somehow summoned each other. To close good questions.

It was clear that they didn't understand the topic. They couldn't recognize what a good question, or a good answer, was. I wound up going away, coming back every few years, go until my next bad experience, and leave again.

Each time, the population answering those questions was smaller.

I believe that a lot of good people left like I did. Then just didn't come back.

If you look at the data on a log scale, and include other stack exchange sites, it's apparent that the serious decline is starting after ChatGPT launches: https://x.com/CraigGidney/status/2115664509042053377/photo/1

One way that stackoverflow does stand out from the other stackexchange sites is that its half life appears far shorter. On a log scale plot it has a steeper descent than the other stackexchange sites. I'm not sure what to make of that. Another interesting thing is that the math stackexchange initially declines more slowly than the others for a year or two and then decays pretty similarly. You can also see examples in some of the other sites of their decay beginning before chatgpt releases (e.g. drupal). You can also see some sites decaying a decade earlier (e.g. expressionengine). I think those outliers are from their subject being too specific and going out of style.

I got the cross-site data from data.stackexchange.com with this vibe-coded query:

    DECLARE @sql NVARCHAR(MAX) = N'
    SELECT
      site = [$site_name$],
      month = DATEADD(MONTH, DATEDIFF(MONTH, 0, CreationDate), 0),
      questions = COUNT(*)
    FROM PostsWithDeleted
    WHERE PostTypeId = 1
    GROUP BY DATEADD(MONTH, DATEDIFF(MONTH, 0, CreationDate), 0)
    ';

    EXEC dbo.sede_ineachdb
      @SQLCommand = @sql,
      @IncludeMainSites = 1,
      @IncludeMetaSites = 0,
      @IncludeMainMeta = 0;

The issue was that Stack overflow never was enjoyable to use.

Asking questions was difficult and any difficulty questions I might ask would not get a response anyway.

Answering questions was a gamble, sometimes you would get rewarded, most of the time you would not.

Agreed, I found SO and Quora and similar sites with general or specific question/answer based communities weak long before AI.

AI replaced Google Search in many ways more directly on arrival than those.

SO to me was weak as it had outdated answers to outdated questions (yet related to search queries) that nobody maintained well.. and the community more focused on patronising to push their point of view than being essentially objective in many ways.

that was a total killer to me and I started preferring to come back to books, manuals and researching topics myself than short cuts like SO.. and that research is heavily optimised during AI/LLM era, yes, but that's just one of many nails to SO's coffin.

A downward trend in the number of questions doesn't imply the site was in decline, since there's only so many questions you can ask about a given technology, so would-be question askers find the answer via search engine rather than having to create a new question on the site.

Tangental, but I tried plotting number of questions by month including deleted questions. It shows similar trends to questions by month (so nothing particularly interesting): https://imgur.com/a/NLLB3OK

Query: https://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/edit/1969...

https://data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/1948078/c... shows the situation even better.

And, StackExchange has adjusted stale/inactive question deletion scripts as a result of this change: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/419988/we-ve-rework...

In my experience, SO became useless many years before AI showed up on the horizon. I stopped actively participating about 2019 and about 2022 gave up on it completely.

I like that you can see a Covid bump in there and then it immediately craters lol

Often overlooked but Discord(and similar communities) are also a big reason why people no longer ask ques. on SO.

No surprises here. However I recently tried to register global account on Stack Exchange network, just to get to some organic conversations and meet people... and I couldn't. Gateway errors, "try again in a few minutes", etc. I did quick research and it seems that I'm not the only one. Maybe I just run into one of the bad days.

Where else were people getting answers and help from between 2018 and AI getting good in the mean time? As I remember it there wasn't really an alternative.

Maybe it was more consolidation of tech and better docs over time.

Yes that was my impression too. SO already died before the rise of AI.

> SO had been flatlined since 2014 and declining since 2017.

I'm fairly certain this early decline came from the fact that many common questions had already been answered, and therefore were available via Google, so hardly anybody asked them again. In the beginning there were just way more unanswered questions.

I had forgotten about that. I also had some of my questions rewritten by other users. That felt so ridiculous. If there is something to add, add in a comment? Why is anyone even able to rewrite what others wrote? Who thought this was a good idea?

> And we know why. It's because of their hostile attitude towards their users.

That’s why it succeeded. It was not a forum, it was something new. Contribute a new question that was well stated and broadly applicable and get a response. You had to earn your answers.

It wasn’t flawless, but it was good and so good it fed all the AI agents with good materials.

It wasn’t a “help me!!!111!” site, it was an exchange.

I put lots of effort into narrowing my questions, eliminating obvious answers by demonstrating the work I put in, and editted all my questions like an email to my boss. I was almost always rewarded with good answers.

> And we know why. It's because of their hostile attitude towards their users.

Right, their decline is because of the thing that they've been accused of since the very beginning, and not the trillion-dollar technology that replaces them. Brilliant take.

Well, the community never made it a very welcoming place... But, I think a part of this is that it's just faster to throw a Q into ChatGPT. There's no waiting for a response, a major bonus is the non-hostility + willingness to respond to 'stupid' questions.

> And we know why. It's because of their hostile attitude towards their users.

That and [redacted] mods who delete your question “because its a duplicate” but its not, you just assume it is and lock it. Lots of this when .NET Core came out and it drove me up a wall. Wouldnt surprise me if a lot of “hallucination” type answers come from bad Stack Overflow data being interpreted as “fact” in earlier models.

Not just their users. My org got pitched stackoverflow careers and their private knowledgebase around 2019. We were somewhat interested but found it too hard to work with them.

We weren't going to be a huge contract (~100k/yr) but the tone was very much "conform or fuck off". I think the sticking point was that we were offered 1x permanent careers ad in North America and 2 in Oceana, and we wanted 3 in Oceana instead.

I've had a similar experience the couple of times I've asked or attempted to respond to questions (about software I wrote lol) - grammar and framing seemed more important than technical information/a solution.

N=1 anecdata ofc, but I'm not surprised at their demise

> then they'll unplug the servers and unregister the business.

You must be new to IT. Software businesses rarely truly die off (unless they're really small one person operations). Even Expertsexchange is still around: https://go.experts-exchange.com/

> And we know why. It's because of their hostile attitude towards their users.

Uh, no.

StackOverflow is and has long been one of the most hostile places on the web, I’m not denying that. But this unprecedented drop in activity is 100% because of AI. Their product is as obsolete as horse-drawn carriages.

> It's because of their hostile attitude towards their users.

The same thing that happened to perl.

> And we know why. It's because of their hostile attitude towards their users.

I used SO almost every day until capable LLMs showed up. I don't remember the last time I used it. SO and similar sites are dead, and LLMs killed them.

> I miss Server Fault

Same. And DBA.se. I was a top contributor of both for the first few years at least, even got sent some free swag a couple of times, not because I cared about the points and being in the first page of people ordered by them, but because I felt genuinely useful and sometimes I got significant help with one or two of my own problems.

I never really did the social side though, I have problems with distance friendships including online communities (I just don't connect well with people that way) which is one reason that I'm hating tech work more and more these days (being on a remote team is not good for my mental health, while I'm not a huge people person it turns out I absolutely need some in my life, and really in my life not on the other side of a Teams call, even though I go into the office most of the people I work directly with don't most of the time so I'm still effectively remote).

I was/am big on Stack Overflow. I always found it amusing when my coworkers stumbled upon my questions or answers. Or i'd find one of my own years later and maybe even try upvoting it before realizing it was my own.

Can't say I formed any connections there though. Just a few negative interactions.

I used to spend time on these sites answering questions. It was actually fun and educational.

I stopped using Reddit not because I got banned, but because it has been steadily converted from the world's most popular forum platform to a trash heap of engagement hacks and shady practices. Moreso than SO, which was already struggling with existential problems before AI, Reddit did itself in.

I gave up on contributing on reddit as everything is being removed by auto moderation as if bots can't spam /r/funny to farm some karma, and how am I supposed to get 1,000 upvotes if I post only in communities that have 1,000 active users? The entire thing is rigged to favor bots and propaganda over genuine human interactions.

Reddit is an absolutely hostile platform now, the amount of dogpiling is insane. Say the wrong thing and apparently you're simultaneously a bot, and a valid target for harassment (why people are so invested in harassing people they think are bots, I have no clue?)

> never managed to get back on Reddit because Reddit is using some very invasive and persistent banned user detection techniques.

The trick is to delete your browser cache (not just things related to reddit, everything), then wait a week to a month before creating the next account.

This happened to me and I haven't bothered to create a new account. I was a 16+ year user. Banned over something innocuous. I tried appealing but it was clearly AI which denied the appeal - despite them claiming it was a human.

Something most people don't know is that Reddit now has a kind of AI partnership with moderators of the larger subreddits. If those mods ban a user from their sub, the AI can suspend or ban a user for "breaking the terms of service." Given the state of Reddit, and the kind of people who moderate the large subreddits, it's creating a fairly violent and polarised community.

I went on Reddit recently to look something up and some of the niche subreddits were decent but I was shocked at the amount of just total garbage that's there now (including lots of weird misogyny) so it's not just the bans that are a problem. It feels like every social media platform is just miserable to use now. Except occasionally posting here my only social media is just Discord servers with my actual real life friends.

There was that 1 person who used to work(paid?/volunteer?) at Reddit that actively tried to cultivate high-quality AMA on Reddit. Ever since they've been gone. It hasn't felt the same.

Some amount of hope and optimism that was around has definitely dried up or at least moved elsewhere into other smaller communities.

Everything is overly centralized around a particular influencer/podcaster/celebrity/product or whatever nowadays, it's harder to find topic based or open community-based places. The other places still exist, but still difficult to find and keep going.

I do hope the pendulum swings back towards hopeful optimistic culturally rich community vibes in many digital spaces.

Its not so much the moderation, its more the random nature of the links, and the anonymization of user contributions.

One thing is that there are lots of bots on the site, another is that the site now seems to be specifically designed for bots.

I am so deeply banned from Reddit it feels retaliatory in some way.

Twitter, too for that matter, but for different reasons.

The Reddit banning algorithm is strange in its own way.

In the past, I had tried to maintain a two accounts setup by policy. My main account (focused on camera, optics and photography etc) got gilded several times, with some posts appearing on their 'Popular' feed. I have used a secondary account(s) on occasions which engages in politics, tech, immigration etc. It has got flagged for contentious debates and I have been Reddit-banned once on one of them (for political criticisms and arguments against right wing; not my finest hour).

Whenever I tried to create a secondary since that incident, it gets banned immediately by their algorithms. It is insanely invasive in how they are able to detect someone. But I am surprised they never touch the gilded one - even if the same device/app was used for registration.

A theory to that feels there is more to than meets the eye in the way they use their filters to ban accounts. They are more lenient to older accounts (having Awards) or the ones which have got recognized in some way (appearing on Main Feed / Popular), but willing to discard the ordinary. Their user management policy is definitely intriguing

In general, in online communities - i think there is no such thing as free moderators. If you aren't paying them in money then you pay them in power.

I refused to make a Reddit account. I knew my personality would lead me to wasting entirely too much time on the site if I could reply. (Like here... >sigh<)

When they killed "old.reddit.com" for non-logged-in users I stopped reading it at all. It's completely useless to me now. The "new" UI is garbage and makes me enable JavaScript.

I suppose I was never their target market anyway.

My account of well over a year and 11k karma was banned by admins presumably for an admin-deleted comment where I said "Hi kids, buy our product!" as a Steve-Buschemi-meme reference, and was flagged as spam. To your point they also have their Comment Quality Score (CQS) which lowers you automatically if you use Proton email aliases, lowers you if you use VPN to access the site, among other things.

Made several polite appeals and requests for clarification, all which went unanswered.

Surprised to hear this, I'm not alone!

My account was banned back around 2021. I had a separate account on mobile, which got subsequently banned for 'evading a ban'. Have been unable to create an account since then, even on entirely new machines, different OS, renewed IP. Whatever tracking techniques they use are downright scary.

The worst part is that all of this started because a mod in a right-leaning sub silenced my account, then decided to turn it into a permanent ban for no reason.

Nowadays, I'd still like to visit r/programming for a change, and share some of my work, but otherwise it's such a cesspool of AI-generated content and bots that the appeal has almost entirely faded.

Reddit still has a place for very niche communities. To this day it can be the best place for a lot of things.

But what's really clear for anything newsworthy or controversial or political is just how much Reddit is botted and brigaded and how easy that is. And Reddit seems totally unwilling to tackle this at all. But you can get something to r/news or even r/all frontpage with even a few hundred accounts.

One example that comes to mind of Reddit enabling this kind of thing is the feature they added where if you click a user they can hide their history. You can still find it, particularly in the LLM era (but it doesn't even require you go to that far), but most people don't go looking because of that extra effort. It's a shame because the botting becomes really obvious.

I honestly think all social media (including Reddit) needs to be required to make public what country an account is posting from, particularly when it comes to politics or anything controversial. My thesis is that you would see just how botted these areas are, how so many accounts with big followings are overseas and likely bots.

You might be tempted to say "they'll just use a VPN". This is a solvable problem however because VPN IP ranges can and will be identified and should invoke more scrutiny. For example, streamers use this kind of thing to find people evading geogating. But also you can't hide latency. Issue someone a challenge and there's only so fast they can respond.

Also subreddit mods can ban your entire account..wtf. I was banned for arguing in a poltical subreddit. So if a mod doesn't like your political beliefs they can ban you (and your devices apparently) from the site.

And can confirm, they are suspiciously good at detecting sock accounts.

and hopefully soon we have decentralized protocols as the standard when we think about user spaces. amen

> Slowly, more and more user accounts get banned, and even technical people I know fail to make a new account which lasts more than 3-4 days.

Meanwhile bots are running rampant and I can't scroll through the site for 10 minutes without seeing an obvious bot post or comment. Dead internet is real.

Reddit is by far the most toxic place on the web, yet somehow manages to get the least amount of scrutiny from regulators. Makes you wonder why, doesn't it?

It's kind of like the opposite of the Nazi bar problem.

You purge some Nazis, then run out of Nazis to purge, but you've got a good purge system going...

all hidden accounts posting political propaganda day and night in the name of privacy was enough to turn me off

> or re-answer

Sure you can. (But it is a significant problem that they start at the bottom of the score-based answer sort and don’t get attention.)

SO wasn't a discussion forum, it was wikipedia for programming. It was already dying long before the question rate dropped off, since most new questions were "plz write/debug my code for me" which tend to be the sort of question that SO was not designed for. Chatgpt replaced that, and github issues replaced project-specific debugging. Now there's nobody left to write/read/answer the small amount of questions that are still a good fit.

There is something about the gamification of social interaction which breeds a hostile community. Power hungry users chasing internet points, or moderators needlessly raising their hammer.

I am not going to miss Stack Overflow. "Question already asked" for some hyper specific question where this is the first google result. "Not enough status" to do x/y/z (sorry, can't answer that unanswered question!), out of date answers, wrong answers being accepted as right, a right answer left high and dry.

I didn't do much community stuff on Stack Overflow, but Server Fault suffered from a certain class of user who was more interested in curating and rules-lawyering the "quality" of questions than actually helping people. It was hard work to keep those people in check, and the Stack Exchange metaphor seemed to draw those kind of people like moth to flame.

ChatGPT bans you for asking it to list all malware that comes with your Samsung TV, or anything biotech related.

I always hate it when a person tries to "X Y problem" me.

I have to explain that, yes, I'm looking at other options, but I'm also exploring this option and need to answer this specific question.

People try to use "X Y problem" to feel superior somehow.

In a dystopian fufure where a few or ONE AI company bested the rest, the company might banned you from using the AI for coding because the AI thinks you're incompetent or require you to pass a test to activate the coding function, because it's dangerous.

Assuming that there's still SWE jobs, when you attend an interview, the AI interviewer from the same AI company may just reject you because you asked which IDE to use just a week ago and it thinks you're not fit for the job.

Was it so hostile?

The way I remember it is that the questions that would be closed were either copy-pastes of homework tasks, vague descriptions of some overarching goal ("how do I implement this?"), walls of code ("why does this crash?"), or obvious duplicates.

Wouldn't acceptance of those things make the site pretty much unusable?

Most online platforms I have used to ask questions or make comments (whether it's real-time chat, mailing lists, forums, etc.) were extremely hostile and always have been... I guess it's just human nature.

StackOverflow, Reddit, Lemmy, Matrix, IRC (esp. Freenode/Libera), Mastodon, Bluesky, Lobsters, Phoronix, GNOME Forums, Discord, Twitter, LKML, ... over time I quit all of them because of just how unbelievably abusive, dogmatic and out of touch people were.

Even on HN I have had to block dozens of different accounts due to breathtaking entitlement, self-righteousness and arrogance.

AI didn't do it to SO. SO's new ownership did it to SO. It's a hostile place with or without AI.

The discussion around who gets a green checkmark and +15 rep was bad enough. I can't imagine how it would be if there was real money involved.

> 2) people betting on which humans are correct (borrow page from prediction markets)

> 4) It creates incentives to game the system, which creates yet-more exhaust data for training anti-fraud AI systems

I'm struggling to think of how this [gaming] presents any kind of net benefit, and I'm likewise struggling on how to mitigate it. How do you envision this working?

Who decides which person is correct?

Maybe someone new could create a new community modeled along these lines where experts could exchange knowledge, or more junior people something else, for answers.

So instead of just not getting paid for my help I might even get to pay if my answer is deemed to be not good enough. Thanks but no thanks.

What I find much worse than someone talking directly to an LLM is when you are communicating with another human and they respond with LLM.

Was it really a community of human communication? I only remember going there for answers, not to make friends. The only person I remember from there was that obnoxious Italian guy who was obsessed with the Chinese government.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. SO was helpful many times but also there were many instances where I found someone asking exactly my question only to see the question was closed as a duplicate of another question which didn't have the same specific issue as I was experiencing.

It seems like their rules sometimes biased towards older questions/answers which in fast changing areas that's the wrong way round.

My experience was both - I got some real valuable help esp. when I was learning how to program.

But... I also came across some real jacka*es. Those were on my questions, but also reading the responses from other peoples questions.

I found it quite helpful at times. Learning in my own projects, and some professional things that I got stuck on I found some incredible help at times.

In my niche, we also had an absolute dictator of a moderator who was a condescending jerk online. Open belittling of people asking questions, connecting new questions to those which had been asked years ago in a different part of the stack and then closing the question, etc. Real tin pot tyrant nonsense, and frankly, a bully.

There was a day where I saw they had been denied a role they interviewed for since they posted about it. I already knew they were in my city. It was a role I had advertised and was the chair for. Im still not sure exactly which candidate, but have my suspicions. In any case, bullet dodged.

For what it's worth, as bad as the site became for question askers, it got even worse for people who answer.

I don't particularly care for e-points and that sort of things, but SO had whole entire way of telling you you are wrong why did you even dare answering, then creating "classes" of user (I apparently made MORE ranking points after I stopped using it than before ? Giving me more moderation power), then seeing "your" answers being edited left and right by people who add a comma or whatever

The whole joy for me was in answering people. It's just fun, I think many hackers get it, bad questions notwithstanding. But as some point they made that ... Less fun, for a lack of a better description. So I just stopped answering.

I love it for what it brought and the great times I had on it for years, but I've stopped actively using it (as opposed to just finding the answer through a google search) for a while and it was way before the rise of LLMs.

SO was often a productivity loss for me because I'd scroll down and get distracted by stackexchange questions on the right side of the screen for half an hour

I really do love their other communities so much more. Lots of super interesting content - it feels like a new digg or something. I go to one of the other stacks and look at the most popular non-tech stack posts once or twice a week purely for entertainment. The breakdowns on obscure but interesting topics can get really fun to read!

From far down in the shady distance of the alley, a small voice shouts back: "Closed, duplicate!"

Can't see your link because it requires a google sign-in. But anecdotally earlier this year I stopped being able to visit SO due to cloudflare, whether it was enabling it at all or increasing its hostility level. Maybe they received a lot of bot traffic leading to this?

Summer vacation, orgs choose what tech you use, but when you can choose yourself it's easier to find answers from the community

I think they reversed this change, because I wanted to complain and agree with you , but decided to see how bad it was and found out that the site displays dates as it used to before

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/19712903/reverse-content...

It's training on every single codebase in the world instead now

You prompt it to fix the mistakes it made and that goes into the new training data

Kind of makes me wonder how knowledge transfer is going to work in the future.

How many times have you found a random forum post solving your problem? How many countless people has that post likely helped?

Now every single person facing the same problem will regenerate from scratch the entire thought process and result. What a waste.

There needs to be some way to close the feedback loop from the work that LLMs do.

FWIW, StackOverflow posts are licensed under Creative Commons BY-SA v4.0, same as Wikipedia.

With or without training they would have gotten eaten.

How about: civility? Because I'd argue that was always the expected, the appropriate thing to do. Always watch for feedback and quickly edit any missed meta-issues with your question. So that during the slim window it can reasonably be shoved into possible answerers faces it will not waste their time.

I put it in a quick chart to make the rise and fall more visual. https://imgur.com/a/046CfZ2

Why's that? Were the moderators mean to you?

He's gone, probably fully retired. He doesn't even attend conferences anymore.

Did it really? It would be nice to see some concrete examples.

The graph doesn't include Stack Overflow for Agents, which is a real product that exists for some reason.

From what I recall, there was a golden era where the site was growing and it was useful and entertaining. One problem is that it had a learning curve. I think it got worse when every answer became editable by other people, and power users and rules lawyers became entrenched and they started closing basically every question as a duplicate. That often resulted to sending people to questions that weren't precisely the same, and often with out of date answers. It felt like they never seemed to figure out whether it was supposed to be a Q&A site, a wiki, or a forum (I suppose forum was generally nixed, other than discussion in comments).

I'm hopeful Reddit will succumb to the same fate. There's too many power hungry people who capriciously control large elements of societal communication these days.

Nah. It launched well, but sorely needed a BDFL. Almost without fail, services that delegate moderation duties to users are ruined. Inevitably, well-meaning people form councils and boards, and then those get taken over by people with nothing but time on their hands. It's the same thing that happens with school boards and HOAs: the last people you want running them are the ones that have the time and the drive to actually want to be in charge of them.

It was an AMAZING community... right up until it wasn't. I cut my teeth on trying to answer questions and learned how much I didn't know when other people's answers were better than mine. Literally made a career out of what I learned there, and I thoroughly enjoyed welcoming people to SO and encouraging new coders to keep learning. But then dang, the question purists and eager close-every-question jocks came to dominate the platform and made it no fun to ask or answer. Even if AI was never a thing, the change in culture probably would have opened the doors to a competitor.

Everything is cyclical. Maybe they come back when AI gets heavily regulated or pay gated. Who knows

does well designed mean rotten and pointlessly hostile

it was as well designed as the nipples on a man

StackOverflow helped build the LLMs that replaced it.

What do you mean? You could always answer questions without any barriers, and partial answers were acceptable. Unless you're talking about protected questions (very rare), or you had such a fundamental misunderstanding of the site that you got answer-banned.